A progressive who stays home on Election Day — or backs Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Cornel West, or No Labels — is voting for Donald Trump."
A more damning quote is at the very end of that article:
"Progressives should not make the same mistake that Ernst Thälmann made in 1932. The leader of the German Communist Party, Thälmann saw mainstream liberals as his enemies, and so the center and left never joined forces against the Nazis. Thälmann famously said that “some Nazi trees must not be allowed to overshadow a forest” of social democrats, whom he sneeringly called “social fascists.”
After Adolf Hitler gained power in 1933, Thälmann was arrested. He was shot on Hitler’s orders in Buchenwald concentration camp in 1944."
"The Dangerous Illusion of a Presidential Third Party in 2024"
While I generally agree with your sentiments. In this instance at least I don't know that I would call it misinformation. Ignorant people do ignorant things out of emotion very often. And I'm sure that a lot of people in those populations are being a heavily propagandized and feel a need to do this despite how much they stand to suffer from it.
Portraying third party presidential candidates as anything more than an ineffectual handwavy the way to absolve yourself of responsibility without actually taking responsibility. Absolutely is misinformation. Highlighting that the misinformation and propaganda are working, which is ironically all this really does. Despite OPs intentions. Does have some value. Though I understand your frustration with them.
Well said.
Despite OPs intentions.
Not so well said. What exactly do you think my "intentions" are? I am posting an article that is online in a much more public environment than Lemmy. And I didn't write the article. Or have anything to do with it's creation.
I was giving you the undeserved benefit of the doubt. The fact you assume otherwise probably says more about your own behavior.
The fact you assume otherwise
So if you were giving me the undeserved benefit of the doubt, why talk about my intentions prefaced with the word "despite"? I actually think your post was well-written and had good points, but when you say "despite OPs intentions" it's very easy to misunderstand what that means. I apologize if I was incorrect.
Getting really tired of the continual misinformation on 3rd Parties, Monk.
Understood. But what misinformation are you seeing? This article doesn't speak out against any of the issues you pointed out.
You know I respect you, but in this instance, it seems you are more tired of people "overlooking" the facts you are quoting, rather than "misinformation" for this particular article.
Because I am not seeing anything in this article that contradicts the information you have posted.
That 3rd parties are somehow viable? (They aren't). Or that voting 3rd party won't harm the Democratic candidate? (It does).
But the article doesn't address those issues. They are simply reporting information about Muslim American voting choices based on interviews and polls.
Information you disagree with is not misinformation.
Getting really tired of the continual misinformation on 3rd Parties, Monk.
https://www.thirdway.org/memo/the-data-how-third-parties-could-be-spoilers-that-elect-trump
"The Data: How Third Parties Could be Spoilers that Elect Trump"
https://web.archive.org/web/20240122162245/https://theintercept.com/2024/01/22/biden-trump-president-election-third-party/
"Don’t Fall for the Third-Party Trick
A progressive who stays home on Election Day — or backs Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Cornel West, or No Labels — is voting for Donald Trump."
A more damning quote is at the very end of that article:
"Progressives should not make the same mistake that Ernst Thälmann made in 1932. The leader of the German Communist Party, Thälmann saw mainstream liberals as his enemies, and so the center and left never joined forces against the Nazis. Thälmann famously said that “some Nazi trees must not be allowed to overshadow a forest” of social democrats, whom he sneeringly called “social fascists.”
After Adolf Hitler gained power in 1933, Thälmann was arrested. He was shot on Hitler’s orders in Buchenwald concentration camp in 1944."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/11/robert-reich-third-party-candidates-will-help-trump-win
"Third-party candidates will help Trump win"
https://www.thirdway.org/report/the-dangerous-illusion-of-a-presidential-third-party-in-2024
"The Dangerous Illusion of a Presidential Third Party in 2024"
While I generally agree with your sentiments. In this instance at least I don't know that I would call it misinformation. Ignorant people do ignorant things out of emotion very often. And I'm sure that a lot of people in those populations are being a heavily propagandized and feel a need to do this despite how much they stand to suffer from it.
Portraying third party presidential candidates as anything more than an ineffectual handwavy the way to absolve yourself of responsibility without actually taking responsibility. Absolutely is misinformation. Highlighting that the misinformation and propaganda are working, which is ironically all this really does. Despite OPs intentions. Does have some value. Though I understand your frustration with them.
Well said.
Not so well said. What exactly do you think my "intentions" are? I am posting an article that is online in a much more public environment than Lemmy. And I didn't write the article. Or have anything to do with it's creation.
I was giving you the undeserved benefit of the doubt. The fact you assume otherwise probably says more about your own behavior.
So if you were giving me the undeserved benefit of the doubt, why talk about my intentions prefaced with the word "despite"? I actually think your post was well-written and had good points, but when you say "despite OPs intentions" it's very easy to misunderstand what that means. I apologize if I was incorrect.
Understood. But what misinformation are you seeing? This article doesn't speak out against any of the issues you pointed out.
You know I respect you, but in this instance, it seems you are more tired of people "overlooking" the facts you are quoting, rather than "misinformation" for this particular article.
Because I am not seeing anything in this article that contradicts the information you have posted.
That 3rd parties are somehow viable? (They aren't). Or that voting 3rd party won't harm the Democratic candidate? (It does).
But the article doesn't address those issues. They are simply reporting information about Muslim American voting choices based on interviews and polls.
Information you disagree with is not misinformation.
And here's the other one.
Another what?
Exactly.